Where hospital insurance beneficiaries were denied payment for expenses
for hospitalization amounting to $325.50 and $408.75, respectively, and
sought judicial review of the Secretary's decision, held under the
provisions of section 1869(b) of the Social Security Act, as amended, the
court lacks jurisdiction to review final decisions of the Secretary under
Part A of title XVIII where the amount in controversy is less than
$1,000.

DUNCAN, Senior Judge:

In each of the above entitled cases the plaintiff seeks to have this court
review a decision of the defendant Secretary of Health, Education and
Welfare, denying hospital benefits under the Medicare program, Part A,
Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §1395 et. seq.

The Secretary has filed Motion to Dismiss each of the cases on the ground
that the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter. Since the cases
contain common issues of law and fact they will be consolidated for the
purpose of this order.

The material facts are established by the affidavits of H. Dale Cook,
Chairman of the Appeals Council and Director of the Bureau of Hearings and
Appeals, Social Security Administration, Department of Health, Education
and Welfare. The plaintiffs have not filed counter-affidavits nor have
they filed suggestions in opposition to the Secretary's motions as
required by Rule 10(c) of the Local Rules of this court.

Prior to August 1971 both of the plaintiffs were enrolled in Part A of the
Medicare program. On August 22, 1971, while they were enrollees under the
Act, each of the plaintiffs was admitted to the Missouri Methodist
Hospital in St. Joseph, Missouri. They remained in the hospital as
patients through August 29, 1971. The expenses for Martha Pankau's
hospitalization totaled $325.50, and the expenses for Lawrence Pankau's
hospitalization totaled $408.75.

The Secretary denied payment for such amounts for the reason that they
were not incurred as a result of necessary hospital care. Payment was
denied pursuant to §1862(a)(1) of the Social Security Act.

On March 9, 1972, following a hearing, the determinations of the Secretary
were affirmed by an administrative law judge (hearing examiner). The
Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration on May 1, 1973,
denied a request by each of the plaintiffs for a review of the hearing
examiner's decision. The plaintiffs filed these actions on June 27, 1973
seeking a review of the decisions by this court under sections 205(g) and
1869(b) of the Act. 42 U.S.C. §§405(g), 1395ff(b).

In his motion to dismiss the Secretary contends that this court lacks
jurisdiction to review such determinations since the amount in controversy
in each of the cases is less than $1,000.00.

In October 1972 section 1869(b) of the Social Security Act was amended by
Public Law No. 92-603 §2990. The amendment states in part:

(a) Section 1869(b) of the Social Security Act is amended to read as
follows: (b)(1) any individual dissatisfied with any determination under
subsection (a) as to—

* * * * * * *

(c) the amount of benefits under Part A (including a determination where
such amount is determined to be zero) shall be entitled to a hearing
thereon by the Secretary to the same extent as is provided in section
205(b) and to judicial review of the Secretary's final decision after such
hearing as is provided in section 205(g).

(2) Notwithstanding the provision of subparagraph (c) of paragraph (1) of
this subsection, a hearing shall not be available to an individual by
reason of such subparagraph (c) if the amount in controversy is less than
$100; nor shall judicial review be available to an individual by
reasons of such subparagraph (c) if the amount in controversy is less than
$1000. [Emphasis supplied]

Clearly, under the provisions of §1869(b), as amended, this court does not
have jurisdiction to review final decisions of the Secretary under Part A
of Title XVIII of the Act, where the amounts in controversy do not exceed
$1,000. [*] Since the expenses
which are the subject matter of these sections were incurred in August,
1971 and the amendment to §1869(b) was enacted on October 30, 1972, it
becomes important to determine the effective date of the amendment. In
this regard §2990(b) of Public Law 92-603 provides that:

"(2) The provision of paragraph (2) and of subparagraph (c) of paragraph
(1) of section 1869(b) of the Social Security Act, as amended by
subsection (a) of this section, shall be effective with respect to any
claims under part A of title XVIII of such Act, filed—

* * * * * * *

(I) before the month in which this Act is enacted [Oct. 1972], but only if
a civil action with respect to a final decision of the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare on such claim has not been commenced under
such section 1869(b) before such month." [Emphasis supplied]

Simply stated, the 1972 amendment of section 1869(b) applies to all claims
filed with the Secretary prior to October 1972, if a civil action with
respect to those claims has not been commenced prior to that date. Since
these actions were brought subsequent to October 1972 the 1972 amendment
applies. [**]

In view of the clear and unequivocal provisions of §1869(b) as amended,
this court is without jurisdiction over the subject matter of the actions.
The motions of the Secretary to dismiss are sustained. IT IS SO
ORDERED.

[*] Section 1869(b), as amended,
provides that judicial review shall not be available to an individual if
the amount in controversy is less than $1,000 rather than $1,000 or less.
(Ed.)

Important Information:

Other Government Websites:

Follow:

External Link Disclaimer

You are exiting the Social Security Administration's website.

Select OK to proceed.

Disclaimer

The Social Security Administration (SSA) website contains links to websites not affiliated with the United States government. These may include State and Local governmental agencies, international agencies, and private entities.

SSA cannot attest to the accuracy of information provided by such websites. If we provide a link to such a website, this does not constitute an endorsement by SSA or any of its employees of the information or products presented on the non-SSA website.

Also, such websites are not within our control and may not follow the same privacy, security or accessibility policies. Once you visit such a website, you are subject to the policies of that site.